Monte Sereno Councilwoman Double-Voted in at Least Seven Federal Elections Since 2010

A Monte Sereno councilwoman seems to have violated federal election law by double-voting in several recent elections.

Councilwoman Rowena Turner, who was elected to the Monte Sereno City Council in 2016 and whose current re-election bid is endorsed by the Santa Clara County Republican Party, is registered to vote in both Grants Pass, Oregon, and Monte Sereno.

According to records from the Oregon Secretary of State and the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters, Turner has voted twice in at least five recent general elections—2010, 2012, 2014, 2016 and 2018—and twice in the 2020 and 2016 primaries.

Louis Caldera, a professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and an expert in election law, says that’s illegal.

Under federal election law, it’s a crime punishable up to $10,000 and five years in prison to vote more than once in a federal election. That includes casting a ballot twice for president, congress or a delegate for Washington D.C., Guam or the Virgin Islands.

One of the requirements for registering to vote, Caldera says, is being a resident of the state where you cast your ballot.

“You can’t be a resident of two places at the same time,” he said. “You can have a second home, but that doesn’t make it a residency.”

It’s not uncommon, nor is it illegal, however, for people to be registered to vote in two different states. That typically happens as a result of someone moving without being dropped from the voter roll.

In 2012, a PEW Research Center report on the U.S. voter registration system, found that about 2.75 million people were registered to vote in two separate states. Lucille Weneigieme, the director of communications for the National Vote at Home Institute, said that the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) has been helpful in states maintaining accurate voter rolls.

ERIC sorts through state voter rolls to identify voters who have moved, died, have multiple registrations in the same state or are eligible to vote but not registered. Only 30 states, however, are enrolled in the program, and California is not one of them. “The election administration is local,” Weneigieme said. “That level of national coordination is extremely necessary to be able to make sure that the process works and has good safe guards across the nation because there isn’t a federal election standard in that way.”

While President Donald Trump has sparked fear among his supporters of voter fraud and double voting, Caldera and Weneigieme both say it’s extremely uncommon.

Weneigieme said there are many security measures “baked into the system,” such as voter-specific bar codes and signature verification, that prevent people from committing voter fraud. However, she added, “there are going to be those odd voter fraud issues because it’s a human system.”

Caldera said that often the penalties for committing voter fraud are high, while the benefits are low. The only way voter fraud could sway the election, he said, is if thousands of people voted in two different states.

“It’s unlikely that people would have the conspiracy to commit voter fraud on the level that would be necessary to impact elections,” he said.

Turner did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Grace Hase is a staff writer for San Jose Inside and Metro Silicon Valley. Email tips to [email protected]. Follow her on Twitter at @grace_hase. Or, click here to sign up for text updates about what she’s working on.

43 Comments

  1. This woman should get the maximum. It is clear she gives a sh!t about the law and integrity. It is known knowledge most psychopaths and narcissistic individuals choose public service (politicians, law enforcement…) their top three trait are need for money, power, and high social status. Antisocial behavior is her means of climbing the ladder of power; too typical!

  2. That would be a felony. If found guilty she should receive the maximum sentence for knowingly & purposefully violating the law.

  3. Back when people were expected to make the effort to go to the poll to cast their ballot this sort of double voting would have been a lot harder to achieve. I suppose this lady COULD have done it but I doubt she would have.

  4. Ms. Turner seems to be very well connected. The endorsements on her website are like a Who’s Who of local politics!

    Liz Lawler, Mayor Monte Sereno, Mike Wasserman, Vice President Board of Supervisors Santa Clara County District 1, Jack Lucas, Former Mayor Monte Sereno, Tracey Enfantino, General Manager, Environmental Systems, Ann Ravel, Federal Election Commissioner, Candidate 2020 State Senate, Michelle Wu, Mayor Los Altos Hills, Rishi Kumar, Councilmember Saratoga and Candidate for Congress 2020, Liang-Fang Chao, Councilmember Cupertino , Yan Zhao, Councilmember Saratoga, Paul Resnikoff, Former Mayor Campbell, Jeff Cristina, Former Mayor Campbell, Rich Waterman, Former Mayor Campbell, Anita Enander, Councilmember Los Altos, Lynette Lee Eng, Former Mayor Los Altos, Lydia Kou, Councilmember Palo Alto, Liza Matichak, Former Mayor Mountain View, Johnny Khamis, Councilmember San Jose District 10.

  5. The article says 2.75 million people are registered in two states. Of those, how many are like Turner and vote twice? Who is supposed to check on this? This was going on for years. Is this an example of voter fraud I hear so much about?

  6. It’s voter fraud made possible by privilege. Only someone with enough wealth to support two or more homes has access to the type of voter fraud alleged here.

    Golly, we’ve talked to death fears of “voter fraud” for years, with an over abundance of worry concentrated on those with the least means, when all along we should have been paying attention to the 1%.

    “I’m so shocked!” said no one.

  7. For Bubble and others, most politicians today both democrats and republicans are unworthy of our votes. This county and this country need leaders that put the people and the country first not themselves. I typically leave spaces blank or write in a name. Read people’s bios and skills. Search their name on the web, read reviews. Vote for character not for Party. I voted for John McCain and will vote for Kamala Harris. VOTE FOR CHARACTER NOT PARTY VOTE FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. The people are the character of a country!

  8. > VOTE FOR CHARACTER NOT PARTY VOTE FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.

    FEXXY:

    If you were voting for “character” you wouldn’t be voting for Kamala or for Joe Biden.

    Former Kamala associates have been coming out of the woodwork and offering a very unflattering portrait of Kamala. She’s exceptionally self-centered and dishonest even for a Democrat politician.

    And everyone on the planet, except for Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler, know that Joe Biden tried to get a Ukrainian prosecutor fired to help Hunter Biden’s grifting career.

  9. “A Monte Sereno councilwoman seems to have violated federal election law by double-voting in several recent elections.”

    Seems? Is “seems” an accepted source, these days? If so, how does “seems” go about sharing its information with a news organization? Because I doubt readers are personally familiar with “seems,” maybe the author of this piece can provide a clue regarding the identity of the source, or at least the methodology used to discover the information.

    My real question is simple: Have all candidates for office been checked for such violations, and if so, who did the checking? Or was it the case, as suggested by the irrelevant inclusion of Ms. Turner’s Republican Party endorsement and the president’s voiced concerns, that the scrutiny of this candidate was produced by that increasingly common and cheap media tactic of dox-by-association? Can’t say for certain, but it sure “seems” that way.

    • Seems is another form of allegedly. It’s journalistic practice to say someone allegedly did something. It’s the same concept of innocent until proven guilty.

  10. I found the article to be lacking in sufficient facts to make a real informed decision. The article does not state whether or not Ms. Turner voted twice on the same Issues or Offices. She has stated she did not. She stated she only voted once on issues of a Federal nature and on local issues, which by default would not be on both ballots.
    I find this lack of detail in reporting to be just another example of how pathetic our news agencies are and how easily they are manipulated by others for political gain.

    • Hi Catherine, I can assure you this information is accurate. I’d like to point you to Oregon’s election law, which states “A person may not vote or attempt to vote both in an election held in this state and in another state on the same date.” The law is very clear that you cannot vote in two different states. It’s one person, one vote.

      Also I contacted Rowena on four different occassions over the span of a few days and she never returned my texts or calls. She had plenty of time to offer her defense.

  11. “Seems is another form of allegedly. It’s journalistic practice to say someone allegedly did something. It’s the same concept of innocent until proven guilty.” — Grace Hase

    It “seems” you chose not to address my sarcasm as opposed to answering the “real question” in my comment: Have all candidates for office been checked for such violations, and if so, who did the checking?

  12. What ever happen to journalistic ethics? Who is this reported? All of the hater out there should find something else to focus on. This string of comments, with the exception of a few, seem to come from a group who need to focus their negative energy on something other than this. Beat your wife or your dog, but leave those of us who are trying to keep our sprits up, during the pandemic from having to read your negative comments.

    P.S. I live in Monte Sereno and now that see the Trump people(i.e. those who create chaos) bashing this candidate I am voting for her. Where do I contribute to her campaign?

  13. I’m with Phu Tan Elli. The piece doesn’t offer up how or who dug up this dirt on Turner. If true then she needs to be held to account.
    It was awfully important for the author to point out Turner has the Republican Party endorsement. Is that somehow indicative of something?

    I suspect this is rather widespread. If so, does the article do a service by just outing a single small town council woman?

  14. Phu Tan Elli, to make a more persuasive case you might consider staying away from “ad hominem” and “red herring” attacks. Instead, to show the article is false, refute the substance of what it says! Just pull the voting records and show that the double voting did not occur as the author says it did. Or, in the alternative, find another expert in election law to dispute Professor Caldera’s assertion that such double voting is illegal.

  15. @DL

    An ad hominem attack is directed at a person. I attacked no person. A red herring is designed to mislead or distract. I attempted to do neither. All I did was to ask if all candidates had been checked for such violations, and if so, who did the checking? That question addressed my concern that Ms. Turner had been singled-out and investigated to a degree beyond that directed against her opponent(s), and had nothing to do with the veracity of the allegations made against her. You see, my concern is that candidates receive fair treatment by the media (which they certainly do not); I have no interest in defending or disproving any wrongdoing uncovered.

    By the way, your attempt to distract me from the disparate treatment question, which endangers our system of government, by challenging me to refute the voting-related charges has the distinct odor of red herring.

  16. Phu Tan Elli, my opinion, and it is just my opinion, is if, as it appears likely, all of the commentators jumping to Turner’s defense are residents of that rich town (yes,I looked it up—crazy, but it seems the AVERAGE home sells for more than $3 million dollars!!!) then they are your typical out-of-touch one percenters. I can’t believe that so many of the comments are defending this poor helpless “single small town council woman”. Turner appears to have violated very serious laws aimed at protecting our democracy. You might want to ask yourself what level of crime would it take for you to actually admit that this is not a good person. This is an ELECTED OFFICIAL, no less, and she seems to have committed multiple VOTING FELONIES yet you rush to her defense.

    So, since you seem like you won’t be satisfied unless you get detail on why your arguments are fallacious, I will walk you through each one:

    1. You focus on the word “seems” to criticize the author. I believe the Author zinged you on that one.

    2. You asked for “a clue regarding the identify of the source, or at least the methodology used to discover the information.” The story clearly indicates, “According to records from the Oregon Secretary of State and the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters, Turner has voted twice in at least five recent general elections—2010, 2012, 2014, 2016 and 2018—and twice in the 2020 and 2016 primaries.” So there you have not just your “clue” but the actual source. Your asking for the methodology is a red herring. Interesting, but not relevant.

    3. You asked whether “all of the candidates have been checked for such violations”. Nice distraction and completely irrelevant—just another red herring. I suppose if the story was about sexual assault or murder you would also be objecting because the other candidates were not “checked for such violations.” The fact is that evidence came to light regarding this offense. Who knows why? Maybe someone in Oregon happened to read a news story that one of their neighbors was elected to a city council in California? It does not matter why and it does not impose any sort of duty on a reporter to then investigate all other candidates for a similar crime. If you really believe the reporter should have, tell me, should she have investigated all candidates in that city or in the County, or all of California and Oregon, or the entire country before you would authorize her to write a story about this?

    4. You asked “who did the checking”—this is an ad hominem attack—completely not relevant.

    5. You criticized the inclusion of the political party and you criticized Hase for noting that President Trump has voiced concerns about what Turner has done. You are clearly not a journalist, or you would recognize good writing. Leaving off either of these things, particularly this close to an election where the President has stoked fears of exactly what Turner seems to have done would be poor journalism. It really sounds like you would respect Hase more if she were a poor reporter.

    6. You assert that it seems that Turner was scrutinized by what you call the “increasingly common and cheap media tactic of dox-by-association.” I find it hard to believe I even have to point out the fallacy here. If you think Turner was scrutinized by Hase because she is Republican and that is why Hase found out that she violated election laws, then you are fabricating out of whole cloth (meaning with absolutely zero evidence) a narrative that says that Hase is going around trying to find election fraud among Republicans. How would you feel if people hurled accusations at you with no evidence at all? Maybe you should reflect on that before you write such things.

    7. You say that you are concerned that Turner received disparate treatment and, to you, this is more important than “the veracity of the allegations made against her.” Yet, again you have provided no evidence that Turner was singled out. How do you know that each of the other candidates was not also investigated for voter fraud? I am guessing you do not. Certainly, if you know of voter fraud by any of the other candidates you should bring that up. Every time you read about someone committing a murder, are you concerned that they received disparate treatment from everyone else? It is normal, I think, that people who commit crimes will receive disparate treatment. Although, apparently Turner has been at this for at least a decade so far before finally being caught, so this disparate treatment you complain about may not be so disparate after all.

    Perhaps I have completely misunderstood what you are trying to communicate. Perhaps you do condemn Turner for her disgusting violation of democratic principles, accentuated by her actually being a politician who needs votes to get elected. Perhaps you truly believe that her being caught red-handed “endangers our system of government” because maybe she was caught only because the reporter investigated her because she was Republican. If this is truly how you feel, then I apologize for misunderstanding you so badly, and I advise you to consider how other people might view your defense of Turner as misguided.

  17. Here’s an admission, after reading the piece I was so bothered by what appeared to be the selective targeting of a candidate that I didn’t notice if any (or all) of the commenters were defending Ms. Turner. Because I’ve been around too long to ever be surprised by the behavior of any candidate for office, my reaction to the allegations made was to assume the evidence proved them to be true. As for whether or not Ms. Turner is a good person, if you think you possess enough evidence to know this one way or the other, you have a lot of learning to do.

    You described the town’s residents as “out-of-touch one percenters.” How can you possibly know they are out of touch? And, come to think of it, out of touch with what? Unless the majority of Monte Sereno residents inherited their wealth they obviously are or were “in touch enough” to achieve success in both their careers and their money management (the latter something at which a great many of 99 percenters fail).

    1. I focused on the word “seems” because it is so journalistically unsatisfying. When Christine Balsy Ford emerged from the woodwork and testi-lied before the Senate, America’s journalists were more than happy to make it “seem” she was merely a traumatized person from the Kavanaugh’s past. And this bit of malfeasance would’ve worked had it not been for the efforts of others to dig into the story and replace ‘she seems to be telling the truth’ with ‘there is no evidence she is telling the truth.” Big difference.

    2. As for the source of the voting records, my question was about their uncovering. Someone likely investigated a lot of things before discovering the problems with Ms. Turner’s voting records, but we are not told who or why. And more importantly, were the backgrounds of her opponents also vigorously investigated, or is this just another example of political activism disguised as journalism?

    3. How do you equate a voting violation with sexual assault or murder? Serious felony convictions require a one-minute records search to find and validate, but to find and validate the allegations made against Ms. Turner required a lot of work, and likely a great deal of luck.

    4. It is not possible to level an ad hominem attack against an unidentified person.

    5. The author wrote, “While President Donald Trump has sparked fear among his supporters of voter fraud and double voting…” If Ms. Hase has proof that only Trump supporters have these concerns, and they have them only because he sparked them, then she should’ve provided it. As it was written, it was biased garbage.

    6. Here you tripped on your own argument. You implied Ms. Turner was “scrutinized by Hase.” Was she? My initial question involved uncovering the identity of the person who scrutinized the candidate. I never suggested it was any particular person; I zeroed in on the word “seems” for its use by Ms. Hase in protecting the identity of the scrutinizer. Did you just out Ms. Hase?
    
7. You need to work on your reading comprehension. I never claimed to know anything about the depth of any investigation, but that said, I’d like to. In fact, what I’d really like is to discover that every candidate for office has been treated fairly as that would assuage my deep fear that an entire generation of young adults has had its brains ruined.

    Lastly, you’ve convinced yourself that I wrote in defense of Ms. Turner. Feel free to scroll up to my comments and find one word that supports your conclusion.

    • Since you keep going back to demanding how this story came about, journalists never reveal how things are uncovered or their sources. But, this information is all publicly available. All you have to do is ask.

  18. Phu Tan Elli, your deeply felt interest for in making sure “every candidate for office has been treated fairly” sounds like my kids screaming “it’s not FAIR” whenever they don’t get what they want. In just reading the article, it does not seem like someone went through her trash with a fine-tooth comb to figure out that she broke the law. We are talking about a politician, someone who is constantly written about in the news.

    Although you do not hide your political leanings, I ask you, when you read a story about a politician committing a crime who belongs to a party you do not support, are you incensed and demand that every other politician in your political party be investigated for the same crime? Probably not. This is an election year. People of every party are checking whether politicians have committed crimes. Is this a bad thing? I would assume every politician in that rich little city and pretty much everywhere have been investigated. To answer your question, yes, it is likely that every other politician in your town and pretty much everywhere is being investigate all the time. Now do you feel better?

    You say that you assume the evidence proves the allegations against Turner true. Are you not incensed by a rich person committing the crime of voting twice? She probably voted for the same person, someone who supports rich people, in both the Oregon and California primary elections. Does this complete abuse of power get you really upset? Just because she has money (yes, Google her name and the word “address” and you can find where she lives and Redfin says her home is worth $3 million dollars!!!) This is a rich rich person of privilege breaking the law. It is not fair that most of us who will never see a fraction of $3 million abide by the law while rich people can completely ignore it.

    You say this story is “biased garbage,” but isn’t learning that a politician committed a felony at least a little bit informative?

    With your extremely high journalistic standards, is there any publication or news station on earth that you find to be fair and balanced? If so, what is it?

  19. DL,
    To equate my concern for the fair treatment of candidates to a childish tantrum is, to be blunt, remarkably stupid. A public deprived of media objectivity in its treatment of candidates is a public deprived of its opportunity to vote in its best interests (kind of important in a representative government; in a progressive totalitarian regime, not so much). As for your laughable description of Ms. Turner as a well-known public figure, I suspect the only way most visitors to this site could pick her out of a photo lineup of recognizable Turners is if she were flanked by Ike, Tina, Lana, Keena, and Stansfield.
    Once again you misrepresent my concern here: I have not objected to (or been incensed by) the investigation of Ms. Turner; my concern is the author’s refusal to reveal how these public records came to be discovered, and her absolute disinterest in demonstrating the impartiality that has historically been touted as a tenet of journalism. Ms. Hase, as evidenced by her reply to me (above), clearly doesn’t get it. Journalists are rightfully protective of sources and methods in some cases, but certainly not in cases where the information revealed looks very much like oppositional research done by the journalist herself. Had she informed readers that the damaging information came to her attention by way of an anonymous source or from Ms. Turner’s opponent(s) then I would have no complaint. But far too much of what passes for journalists doing their jobs these days is in reality covert political contributions (of labor) to favored candidates or causes.
    As for your assurance that every other politician in Monte Sereno has been investigated, maybe you or Ms. Hase can back that up with some evidence?
    You ask: “Are you not incensed by a rich person committing the crime of voting twice?” Is Ms. Turner rich? If you can conclude from the market value of her home that she is rich then I imagine you must’ve concluded, back during the peak of foreclosures, that every evicted person went from being prosperous to dead broke overnight. Also, why do you think her socioeconomic status is pertinent? Do you really equate wealth with lawbreaking? If so, how do you account for the dearth of well-heeled stickup men?
    As for my “biased garbage” comment, I again have to wonder about your reading comprehension. I did not say her story was biased garbage, I aimed that phrase at her shameless linking of Ms. Turner’s alleged misdeeds to the president (by way of his stated concerns about ballot integrity). Also, I never denied the story was informative (after all, before reading it I’d never heard of Ms. Turner or her alleged lawbreaking). You should try to argue against what I actually wrote, not the words read by your amygdala.
    Your question: “Is there any publication or news station on earth that you find to be fair and balanced?” My answer: No. Fair and balanced has always been a goal just a bit too far for fallible humans, one now all but abandoned in a profession dominated by brainwashed posers.

  20. This article isn’t based on anything. No sources. No proof. “Seems….” isn’t enough when you’re making an accusation against someone.

    This isn’t journalism.
    This is creative writing.

    • Hi Lou, please go back to the third paragraph. All information came from the Oregon Secretary of State’s Office and the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters.

  21. Do your own research. This is a contentious election cycle and less scrupulous sorts are trying to influence elections. Even in local politics it seems.

    Anyone who has access to MS Nextdoor knows what’s been going on for the last month or so. There have been several attack ads run against multiple candidates. It seems Rowena is just the latest victim of these attacks. Before this, it was another council member (Daniel Labouve) who ended up stepping down.

    Here’s an interesting tidbit that this news article and Grace did not volunteer. Rowena responded publicly to these allegations on Nextdoor a week before this article was published. Interestingly enough, none of what she posted publicly made it into this article (first yellow flag).

    Another interesting tidbit. The individual has been pushing this rhetoric is Susana Craig on Nextdoor. She is the wife of Burton Craig, who incidentally appears to be running for office. Kind of important context. Another yellow flag.

    And it only gets better. After a little bit of additional digging, it has become clear that this is a group of ex-council members / current council members who, for unknown motivation, are launching coordinated attacks against Rowena Turner, Daniel Labouve, and possibly Liz Lawler. Apparently there is some leaked communications where current seated council members were caught communicating with candidates Burton Craig, Bryan Mekechuk, And Marshall Anstandig to remove seated council members Daniel LaBouve and Rowena Turner. You cannot make this up, read it for yourself on Nextdoor! This has apparently been going on for months! You can also file a public record request with the city itself.

    Ex-councilmember Daniel LaBouve seems to be corroborating this information as he has posted numerous times on this subject on Nextdoor. Incidentally, one of the members of this ex-council group is Marshall Anstandig who I just discovered, just happens to be an SVP for MediaNews Group which coincidentally owns both San Jose Insider and Mercury News, the two news organizations that seem to consistently publish articles about Monte Sereno politics (https://www.linkedin.com/in/marshall-anstandig-55428a5).

    Here are some important facts to take into consideration.

    Monte Sereno is SMALL. It consists of less than 3500 residents. It is mostly residential with less than $3 million in annual operating revenue as of 2017.

    City Council Members in Monte Sereno do not earn a salary. This is a volunteer position.

    Daniel LaBouve was appointed after the departure of Curtis Rogers. He does not appear to be someone who is biased as he was selected by the seated council members.

    The amount of attacks and smears over the last few weeks has been consistent and only ramping up, propagated by the same group of individuals. This is only the latest string of accusations.

    This small very vocal group of individuals who are launching these attacks (you can find a list of these individuals here: https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/10/11/letters-100/). They all happen to be ex-council members, spouses of ex-council members, or individuals related in some way to their campaign. Cross reference them against the Nextdoor posts, and an interesting pattern emerges.

    At this point, it is unclear if any of these accusations have been substantiated. The group goes from one accusation to the next and focuses on whatever sticks to the wall. These are all he-said-she-said and I have yet to see any actual paperwork to support these claims. Grace claims that she cannot reveal her sources, but given that the only sources have been from Next Door and specifically from opposing campaigns, I think it is important that her source NOT be someone affiliated with any of the opposing candidates.

    We live in a society which is based on rule of law and the notion that someone is innocent until proven guilty. Given the nature and context of these allegations, I do not find the evidence (or lack thereof) convincing.

    Everyone here should make their own decisions based on facts, not conjecture.

    • NextDoor is not a public forum so I have yet to see a statement from Ms. Turner. I contacted her four different times and she did not respond to me (as the article notes). As for whether this information is substantiated, it is. I clearly state in the third paragraph of the story that this information came from the Oregon Secretary of State’s Office and the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters.

      Lastly, San Jose Inside is not owned by Media News Group (also referred to as Digital First Media).

  22. Grace, I think it is dishonest that you don’t disclose the relationships here. You have written for The Mercury News, and there is an obviously a conflict of interest with, at the very minimum, the Mercury News. These relationships should be disclosed to rule out any sort of bias, whether intentional or otherwise.

    • “Concerned Citizen,” there is no conflict of interest here. I do not know Marshall Anstandig, nor did I know who he is until today. I worked as a freelance journalist for The Mercury News more than a year ago. That is no secret. I have one job here and that is to uncover the truth, which is what I did. You’re projecting biases and relationships on me that do not exist.

  23. Turner is a politician. You are not at all concerned about the crime, just “fairness” for her because someone checked and found out she was voting in multiple states. Politicians should expect to be scrutinized. Heck, if I found out any politician, anywhere in the country, is voting illegally in two different states I would report them and I hope you would also. I never said Turner was well known, just that she is a politician and that ALL politicians (at least ones who have opponents or are not universally beloved by everyone they come into contact with—in other words, pretty much everyone) if they are voting in multiple states they should expect that will come out—to think otherwise is simply naïve.

    You are correct. Turner may not be rich. She may just live in a $3 million home for decades and perhaps she is just a poor working stiff like the rest of us. The article says she also votes in Grants Pass Oregon and there is a property in that city that comes up when you search on her name. It is a 4,000 sqft estate on 27 acres. Again, I admit you are correct, Turner might be just a poor person who has jinormous mansions in multiple states.

    I will also admit that you are a smarter person than I am. You are really good at twisting words all around so they end up like pretzels. But I know that no matter what you say, Turner appears to have committed a crime, a serious crime that strikes at the very root of democracy. And you appear to care not a bit about it, being more concerned that, maybe, her residency and voting record was unfairly singled out by a reporter. My guess is that it is most likely someone who doesn’t like her, either in California or in Oregon, though probably in Oregon, because all it takes is a simple Google search on a name to find out that she is a politician in California—not much work, just surprising it took so many years.

    You throw around insults as easily and quickly. “biased garbage”, “entire generation of young adults has had its brains ruined”, “remarkably stupid”, “laughable description”, “a profession dominated by brainwashed posers” and yet who seem to by not able to condemn wrongdoing when it is a plain as the nose on your face. How do you describe yourself? “Remarkably composed, fair, and very moral”? (I admit, this is an attempt at sarcasm).

    For Concerned Citizen, you mentioned a lot of different names and small town stuff that probably almost nobody really cares about—I don’t care about the little factions you have in your town. Probably both are right and both are wrong. But the one thing that you touched on that was relevant was that Turner responded publicly to this, and yet you left off what she said!? Did she say she didn’t vote in two different states? The evidence seems crystal clear—Turner broke the law by voting in two different states seven times. What could Turner say other than to respond by not answering the question? Did she say something like, “I am shocked that anyone would dare to accuse me of such a thing?” because that does not answer the question and not saying what she said does make it seem like she did not answer the question. Even the author tried unsuccessfully to contact Turner several times with no response. If she had some meaningful public response why not give it? Why did you not say it?

  24. DL,

    Why should I be concerned about the allegations made against Ms. Turner? I’m neither a resident of Monte Sereno nor a prosecutor, so I’m fine leaving this relatively trifling matter in the hands of others.

    That said, I’m impressed with your research into Ms. Turner’s property holdings and can only wonder about your motivation. That her wealth is that important to you proves to me that our values are irreconcilable. I don’t judge people by such measures and don’t have any respect for those who do. I know what it’s like to be penniless and I know what it’s like to be comfortable; I also know that my values and basic decency have remained consistent throughout.

    The terms I used that you found offensive represented what I believed to be fair analysis; they were intentionally harsh, for effect, not insult. I realize such severity is foreign to those accustomed to ruinous tolerance, unearned self-respect, and consequence-free lives, but I believe it’s a reasonable tactic when battling intellectual stupor.

  25. Phu Tan Elli, it is exactly people like you and Turner who have convinced me to vote for Trump. At first I did not want to believe that there was much if any voter fraud in the US. But seeing not only clear evidence but so many people who want to cover it up or dismiss it as not important has convinced me that Trump is right, voter fraud is more rampant than I thought. We can only Make America Great Again if we stick to our morals and fight corruption and fraud and the indifference people like you show.

    My motivation to spend the all of two minutes that it took was to respond to research this was to respond to your question about whether she is rich. Clever of you to criticize that I thought Turner was rich and then criticize me for showing it.

    You choose not to respond to what I said, instead you resort to name calling. While I never was able to go to college, I scored in the top 2% on my high school SAT. I may have to work to help support my parents, and may never get to be so “comfortable” as you, but I read everything I can and I can look in the mirror and feel good about myself. I wonder if a person like you who constantly resorts to name calling–I understood your insults of “unearned self-respect” and “intellectual stupor”–but what do you even mean by saying I am accustomed to “ruinous tolerance” and “consequence-free life”? Are you this nasty to those in your personal life or do you just reserve this for people online who disagree with you?

  26. Phu Tan Elli, (I did not finish my last post). I am doing my best to teach my kids to not bully other kids, to do the right thing, not the easy thing, because how you treat other people is how you will be remembered. I help my parents who are good people and they taught me what is important. Can you really look in the mirror and feel good about how you treat other people?

  27. Phu Tan Elli, Concerned Citizen are all pseudo handles (or folks from the camp) of Rowena Turner. Instead of addressing the core issue of dual voting, they are intentionally diverting the topic to other irrelevant topics so that the main topic bites the dust. Classic trick!

    * Did she or did she not vote in OR – records show, she did.
    * Who does she pay her taxes to? OR or CA?
    * Why is she driving cars with OR license plates for decades and attending the Council meetings using them – is she so cheap to fraud the CA state even on DMV fees?

    Most of all, why does she feel so privileged to do all these fraudulent items and come to Council meetings on a high horse with her bullying tactics?

  28. I agree with TIRED.
    But, where is the prosecution?
    This is an acrimonious election cycle. I will be glad when it is over.

  29. Wow. I was hoping this would end, but someone has hijacked my nom de plume (I did not post the link above), so now I will wade into the morass. If you really want to be shocked, just listen to the audio–it is a council meeting talking about Turner. I will summarize. The two council members appear to be deeply on Turner’s side. The attorney for the town only talks about how the town can’t do anything because they can’t investigate a crime and Turner is there saying she can’t say anything because she has an attorney–I wonder why she has an attorney. Instead they are blaming a foreign council member for being unethical because he put an item on the agenda to talk about Turner!! And all of the speakers are passionately (crying in some cases) blaming everyone else but Turner–it is everyone’s fault, but not the person who appears to have committed the actual crime!! That must be one of the most morally bankrupt towns in all of the US as everyone rushes so quickly to defend the criminal and attack everyone not defending the criminal.

    Whoever posted this, you may think that posting that meeting audio is going to get people’s sympathy, but I think it does the opposite, it makes everyone in your town look bad. Or, if you posted the link to make the town look bad, then congratulations, you succeeded in manipulating me into analyzing it. In any event, whether you are one of the people defending Turner or one who thinks she should be locked up, why not just let this die? Move on to other important issues facing this country (hint, we have an important election coming up.) PLEASE STOP USING MY PEN NAME.

  30. For those alleging voter fraud, remember this, the Republican-led investigation into the voter fraud Trump alleges was closed – by the Republicans who started it – for lack of evidence. LACK OF EVIDENCE. There’ve only been a couple instances found and those comprised a tiny-fraction-of-1% of the vote (and each instance was found to be by Republican ‘operatives‘ – noone in office).

    So I applaud Grace for doing her investigative work, the information she found is publicly available, now it’s time for Rowena Turner to respond to her constituents. Having said that, the information is pretty damning, the D.A. should look into this and either clear Turner fully or prosecute. Personally I’ve had enough with the 1%-ers thinking it’s OK to stiff the average citizen by double-voting or paying reduced taxes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *